What are the mental health impacts of epidemics on relatives of people affected, and relatives of healthcare workers: What interventions are available to support them? A systematic review and narrative synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Previous research has mainly focused on the impacts of epidemics on those people who are directly affected by the epidemic infection, or of healthcare workers caring for them. Less is known about the impact on mental health of their relatives, and potential interventions to support them. METHODS: Systematic review and narrative synthesis. OUTCOMES: 28 studies were identified, sixteen quantitative and twelve qualitative. One involved health workers' relatives, and the rest covered relatives of directly affected individuals. We found considerable burden of mental ill-health in both groups. Among relatives of healthcare workers, 29.4% reported symptoms consistent with probable anxiety disorder and 33.7% with probable depression. Prevalence rates for probable anxiety disorder ranged from 24-42% and probable depression 17-51% for the relatives of affected people. One study found a 2% prevalence of PTSD and another found odds of PTSS were significantly higher among relatives of affected individuals compared with the general population. Only two intervention studies were identified and both were descriptive in nature. INTERPRETATION: Available evidence suggests relatives of people affected by infective outbreaks report mental ill-health. Having a relative who died particularly increased risk. Good outcomes for relatives of affected individuals were promoted by practical and social support, public health guidance that recognises the caring role of relatives, and being supported to see the positives as well as negatives in their situation. Good outcomes for relatives of health workers were promoted by perceived effectiveness of protective equipment. High quality evidence on potential interventions to support relatives is lacking. FUNDING: No external funding sought.

Clinical evaluation of fever-screening thermography: impact of consensus guidelines and facial measurement location.

SIGNIFICANCE: Infrared thermographs (IRTs) have been used for fever screening during infectious disease epidemics, including severe acute respiratory syndrome, Ebola virus disease, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Although IRTs have significant potential for human body temperature measurement, the literature indicates inconsistent diagnostic performance, possibly due to wide variations in implemented methodology. A standardized method for IRT fever screening was recently published, but there is a lack of clinical data demonstrating its impact on IRT performance. AIM: Perform a clinical study to assess the diagnostic effectiveness of standardized IRT-based fever screening and evaluate the effect of facial measurement location. APPROACH: We performed a clinical study of 596 subjects. Temperatures from 17 facial locations were extracted from thermal images and compared with oral thermometry. Statistical analyses included calculation of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and area under the curve (AUC) values for detection of febrile subjects. RESULTS: Pearson correlation coefficients for IRT-based and reference (oral) temperatures were found to vary strongly with measurement location. Approaches based on maximum temperatures in either inner canthi or full-face regions indicated stronger discrimination ability than maximum forehead temperature (AUC values of 0.95 to 0.97 versus 0.86 to 0.87, respectively) and other specific facial locations. These values are markedly better than the vast majority of results found in prior human studies of IRT-based fever screening. CONCLUSION: Our findings provide clinical confirmation of the utility of consensus approaches for fever screening, including the use of inner canthi temperatures, while also indicating that full-face maximum temperatures may provide an effective alternate approach.